Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether silver kept in the appellant's premises was liable to confiscation and penalty for non-compliance with Chapter IVB of the Customs Act, 1962 despite the plea that it was not meant for export.
Analysis: Chapter IVB was enacted as a special preventive measure to curb illegal export and to facilitate detection of specified goods. Section 11J required intimation and compliance in respect of specified goods, and Section 113(1) made such goods liable to confiscation where the Chapter IVB requirements were contravened. The heading of Section 113 did not confine its operation only to proved attempts at improper export; the expression used in the provision extended to other situations covered by the chapter. The appellant's shifting stand regarding the source and character of the silver, coupled with the later resort to an amnesty scheme, supported the conclusion that the goods were not satisfactorily explained. The contravention was therefore substantive and not merely technical, and the penalty was not shown to be excessive.
Conclusion: The confiscation of the silver and the penalty were held to be valid and proper.
Ratio Decidendi: Non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Chapter IVB of the Customs Act, 1962 renders specified goods liable to confiscation under Section 113(1), even if the goods are not shown to have been actually intended for export.